Dammit [Archive] - .com.unity Forums

johan osterman

August 25th, 2004, 06:39 PM

The Panther said:
I think you may have missed my point. I probably was not very clear. What I was saying is that a commander with 1 troop routs very easy. A commander with zero troops does not, he has to rout on his own. And it seems to me to be far harder for him to rout when alone than with any army of any size. Maybe this is not true, but it sure seems like it is to me. This is completely backwards. Troops ought to decrease the chance of routing, not increase it.
...

Commanders used on their own are obviously not intended to be used just as support or to get the troops into battle, so they do not behave like commanders with armies does. Since the sort of commanders people use as supercombatants usually have a very high morale they are unlikely to rout on their own, but suffer from army rout as easy as the next commander. Obviously army rout is more prone to happen when the army is smaller, since the army, discounting commanders, is more prone to routing. Exactly what is it that you find unintuitive with this?

I would also like to point out that it appears that you and magnate are arguing from what amounts to opposing positions. Magnate does not want commanders to rout because army rout occurs while you appear to be arguing for morale penalties for single commanders, presumedly not wishing for commandes to stick around when abandoned by their armies.

Kel

August 25th, 2004, 07:06 PM

SC's can hardly avoid being hit. If this were not true, life draining would not be as paramount as it is now. Good or bad, you are going to have a hard time keeping your SC from getting fatigue and being hit.

On the topic of a lone SC being more brave than an SC who brought along some friends, it also makes *some* sense in that morale would be affected, to some degree, by seeing your fellow commanders fall in battle.

Otoh, I also find it somewhat frustrating that sending in a minor support squad with an SC is often more dangerous than sending him alone. Plus, it makes mage hit squads more tenuous as 30 mages can be routed by one incinerate/arrow/frozen heart/whatever.

Still, I wonder if it was intentional since it would have a good bit of affect on game balance. It would make mage hit squads much more powerful and reliable, thus helping certain nations a good bit (especially caelum but any mages who make use of cloud trap/teleport type spells).

- Kel

The_Tauren13

August 25th, 2004, 07:14 PM

the main point here is that it does not make RP sense for a commander to rout in the second round of battle because the one troop with him died, when, if he had gone in alone, he would still be fighting

magnate

August 25th, 2004, 07:35 PM

Doh! I can't believe I've been so stupid - there's an easy solution to the chaff problem: take the SCs in *pairs*! Take a 3rd commander with the chaff - all the chaff dies, 3rd commander routs or dies also, and the two SCs continue merrily on until one of them routs.

I think that works, doesn't it? It's not one rout, all rout, it's that the Last commander alone will rout if everyone else has. Must try it .... admittedly using SCs in pairs is a lot less strategically efficient than using them singly, but what the heck ....

Kel - I wasn't talking about melee SCs (who do indeed get hit a lot, you're right), I was talking about the guys who stand at the back and lob spells - not SCs in my book. They're the ones which you try to avoid getting hit - surrounding them with bodyguards etc. Hence them routing when fatigued + hit but not when only fatigued is ok.

CC

Cheezeninja

August 25th, 2004, 08:33 PM

A lone commander MAY route, but that by no means equates to 'will' route. While the system does work and i really dont know if any complaints with it are serious to justify a change, it is kind of silly that a commander is willing to charge the enemy on his own and stay the duration of the battle, but is there iz zero chance of him staying if as few as a single possible unit are lost, even when the units in question are worthless or free. The flag carrying mascot that this is illogical would be the Moloch, for reason i am sure most of us are very aware.

Don't get me wrong, the system works, and it works well. It just sometimes seems counterintuitive when its often better to send someone into a pitched battle alone if you have any doubt that his army could survive the whole battle with him. Name for me a single historical battle where a General said "no, you guys couldnt survive the whole fight, better i go in alone".

I really dont want to seem like i'm jumping on the "Change it!" bandwagon, because its extremely well balanced the way it is, it just sometimes doesnt feel quite right. At a certain point you absolutly have to choose game balance over how realistic it is.

[edit] oh, and for magnate, if the chaff routes or is killed ALL commanders route, not just their commander.

Arryn

August 25th, 2004, 08:53 PM

Cheezeninja said:
oh, and for magnate, if the chaff routes or is killed ALL commanders route, not just their commander.

Correction: all non-berserk commanders.

Folks having these problems are failing to make use of the magic items (such as the Berserker Pelt) the devs created to deal with this issue. As is the case for many things in this game, for each "problem" there is almost always one or more solutions. You just have to get a bit more creative with your strategy. This isn't Warcraft, where the solution to problems is either a.) throw more stuff at it, or b.) use a bigger hammer.

The_Tauren13

August 25th, 2004, 09:07 PM

i for one dont think it should be changed, i just think its a bit unrealistic.

and you, arryn, have obviously never played warcraft III

magnate

August 25th, 2004, 09:11 PM

No I'm sorry, you shouldn't have to send your commanders berserk just to avoid them fleeing when the chaff is killed. I'm very upset that even two SCs will flee when a chaff regiment is routed.

Berserk is fine when you are not in any danger of losing, but flying SCs need to be able to flee if they are severely damaged and/or fatigued, which is not possible if they are berserk.

This is wrong wrong wrong. Someone give me a good argument why it can't be changed so that only the commander of the chaff regiment routs with his troops. So commanders without troops will only rout when they themselves are wounded/fatigued.

CC

Ironhawk

August 25th, 2004, 09:31 PM

I agree with cheezeninja. Is the system "realistic"? No. Does it work well? Yes. But why get caught up in realism if this is just a game? A fantasy game at that. Balance is all that really matters in the end and the system, as it stands, has that.

I mean, sure, request or even propose a change to the system. By all means! But IMO, its not a crippling issue that requires immediate dev response. As you gain more experience with the morale system you will be able to see past its quirks and appreciate its value.

Arryn

August 25th, 2004, 10:04 PM

The_Tauren13 said:
and you, arryn, have obviously never played warcraft III

Really? Strange, since I do have the game installed on my system (well, it actually belongs to a friend of my BF's), and played it through Act 1 Chapter 6 before getting annoyed with it. Obviously, you should be a bit more careful about the ASSumptions you make and whom to.

nakomus

August 25th, 2004, 10:16 PM

This is wrong wrong wrong. Someone give me a good argument why it can't be changed so that only the commander of the chaff regiment routs with his troops. So commanders without troops will only rout when they themselves are wounded/fatigued.

If commanders without troops don�t rout when the army routs, what happens to support mages and priests? Should they stay on the field and wait for the opposing army to come and mop them up?

If you are using a *real* army, the commander routing is probably what you *want* to happen.

Suppose I have one commander leading 50 heavy infantry, 3-4 mages casting spells and a couple of priests for morale. If the 50 infantry get killed that means I�ve almost certainly lost of the battle. If the mages and priests stick around they will just die, costing me more.

For situations like this, changing the routing system would be very detrimental. Do SCs really need the extra boost at the expense of conventional armies?

Yvelina

August 26th, 2004, 12:33 AM

> and played it through Act 1 Chapter 6 before getting annoyed with it.

Act1 Chapter 6? Funny, this is EXACTLY where my boyfriend ditched that game.

Graeme Dice

August 26th, 2004, 12:39 AM

Someone give me a good argument why it can't be changed so that only the commander of the chaff regiment routs with his troops.

Do you really want all your human mages to stick around on the battlefield when the rest of the army runs away past them?

The best solution would be a switch that could force commanders to only rout if they personally fail a morale check, instead of routing on the army rout conditions. This would have the added benefit of making minicombatants more likely to take down a single supercombatant if one of them dies.

The_Tauren13

August 26th, 2004, 01:19 AM

Arryn said:
Really? Strange, since I do have the game installed on my system

ive noticed that fans of underated strategy games that havent recieved the popularity they deserve, such as dominions II, have a tendency to diss on the popular games, refusing to admit that they, too, are good

dont mind me... just a pet peeve i guess.

The Panther

August 26th, 2004, 01:59 AM

Arryn said:
Strange, since I do have the game installed on my system (well, it actually belongs to a friend of my BF's), and played it through Act 1 Chapter 6 before getting annoyed with it. Obviously, you should be a bit more careful about the ASSumptions you make and whom to.

Sounds to me like you didn't really play Warcraft 3 if you never went to MP. War 3 MP is extremely good, even though SP ain't all that great. Sounds like it was a GOOD ASSumption after all.

As for the basic premise of this post, the routing thing is very counter-intuitive. It is one of the hard lessons to learn when trying to make an SC and moving onto MP from SP. For example, the guy who summons the free imps is a lousy SC because he routes when the imps die.

This clearly is not a good situation. I stand by my earlier comments. The presence of troops OUGHT to decrease the chances of routing, not increase it. Game play balance, role playing, whatever. It is still very counter-intuitive and fundamentally wrong.

This could be fixed with some fairly easy changes:

1. A commander should not automatically rout when all the troops are gone. It should definitely increase the chance of routing, though, in order to protect the vulnerable mages. Maybe a single hit in the presence of fatigue or even just fatigue itself (like maybe 50%) should be enough to cause the rout of a commander without an army. This would help protect the mages in a losing battle.
2. A commander without troops should rout far easier than one who still has troops. The commander without troops should be the exact same chance of routing as in point 1 above. Thus the guy who brings an army with his commander is not punished for doing that, like it is now. He would therefore be more likely to win such a battle against a lone SC, even with mini-SCs like properly outfitted national commanders, as long as he has a support army. THIS would be far more intuitive than the current system.
3. When support troops start dying, the chances of a commander to rout should slowly rise. It ought to be the exact same kind of check that a squad has to determine when to rout. After all, the commander is the leader of the army and should never act independant of his troops. He will also stay on the battlefield much longer simply because he starts with higher morale than most living troops do.

Someone earlier in this thread said that concrete suggestions should be proposed for consideration by the devs instead of whining. Nuf said.

Sheap

August 26th, 2004, 02:16 AM

There is no one-size-fits-all solution that does the "right thing" for both combat mages and SCs. No matter what spin you put on it, either your mages won't rout soon enough or your SCs will rout too soon.

The current system is bad only for a group of mini-SCs, who could tolerate the loss of a couple of their members, and for regular SCs with mage backup. Even in that case, it's only a problem if the mage dies. If the SC dies, you still want the mage(s) to rout.

I'm relatively satisfied with the way it is. SCs and mages are strong enough already. Sure there are cases where it is a nuisance, but balance-wise, it works out best. But if you start dinking around with it, everything you try will be in the end worse.

The only solution would be to allow the player to specify, for each commander, whether for him to rout on army loss or not. Or, to specify this as part of the unit definition. (This would certainly fix the Moloch, who is the only unit who really needs this sort of adjustment).

The Panther

August 26th, 2004, 02:43 AM

Well Sheap, your solution would solve the knotty issue of being penalized for taking troops into battle. So it is really not all that bad, actually. You could put you mages on rout-yes and your fighters on rout-no. But it still seems contrived. Maybe this could be auto built into the troop.

Somehow, though, the problem where you are penalized for having troops with your commander truly needs to be fixed. Especially in the case of an SC pretender sitting in a owned province with 1 PD.

I recently killed a power VQ owned by Arch in a game by cutting off the retreat province and attacking the pretender with just enough random troops to kill the 1 PD. It was such a cheesy strat that it left a bad taste in my mouth even though it worked out like I intended.

archaeolept

August 26th, 2004, 03:08 AM

oh thanks for bringing up my being rooked like a noob http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif

I was just being greedy and didn't expect a flying mammoth.

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

and i had bought that stupid PD just w/out thinking. I would say that the "oh no, my one useless follower is dead, I must flee" is the worst example of the unthematic nature of the current rout system. or why all rout if one cheesy commander in an all commander army dies.

Now, if the pretender were to die on the battlefield, I sure could see a general rout...

Thufir

August 26th, 2004, 03:13 AM

archaeolept said:
... didn't expect a flying mammoth.

hmmmm, that does sound like a noob mistake! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

Morkilus

August 26th, 2004, 03:26 AM

Even if you don't EXPECT the flying mammoth, you should FEAR the flying mammoth. I sure do. Right now. In RL.

On topic, can there be a mod for the routing commanders issue? Or is this so hard-coded to be impossible? It seems attractive to set the routing to be %80 or so if a commander dies on field with no troops, adjustable by relative total army strengths... isn't that how troops decide to immediately flee or not, anyway?

Sheap

August 26th, 2004, 03:27 AM

Exempting PD from the rout calculations would probably help, but my guess is it would be difficult to implement.

I have to confess, I normally play nations where PD is either strong enough, that having it die isn't a real problem, or else so bad, that you would never recruit any for any reason http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif So while I understand this argument, it doesn't have much visceral impact.

Maybe including rout behavior into the unit definition would be best. Unfortunately, there are 1000-some units, and they'd all need to be modified, since theoretically any unit can become a commander.

No es bueno.

Morkilus

August 26th, 2004, 03:55 AM

I wasn't sold on the whole "SuperCommander" (or whatever it is thing) until I decided to send 10 Avalon knights, 50 archers, and 30 or so infantry against Bogus and his friends... and totally got my armored *** handed to me. Funny how he decided afterwards to hang out at Marignon's castle and keep them from doing ANYTHING at all... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

Bogus is Baroken.

Arryn

August 26th, 2004, 06:07 AM

The Panther said:
Sounds to me like you didn't really play Warcraft 3 if you never went to MP. War 3 MP is extremely good, even though SP ain't all that great. Sounds like it was a GOOD ASSumption after all.

You, too, are making bad assumptions. It is perfectly valid to judge a game based on its SP value, alone. The majority of computer game players play only in SP. You may not like to admit it, but MP players are a minority, albeit a large and disproportionately vocal one. There are plenty of games that are good in SP and great in MP (such as Diablo 2, Call of Duty, Dom 2, just to name three) that I needn't waste time with those that suck in SP and *might* be better than sucky in MP.

The Panther said:
Someone earlier in this thread said that concrete suggestions should be proposed for consideration by the devs instead of whining.

I said it.

Arryn

August 26th, 2004, 06:29 AM

The_Tauren13 said:
ive noticed that fans of underated strategy games that havent recieved the popularity they deserve, such as dominions II

Dom 2 is not "underated". It received glowing reviews from both CG and CGW magazines (which was what prompted me to check out the demo). The only thing "underated" about Dom 2 is the lack of appreciation the devs get for a game they basically did/do in their spare time. As for popularity, TBS strategy games in general do not appeal to the "me now" generation of console twitch gamers, which is fine by me as I really don't care much for the opinions of kids who hadn't even been born yet when U.S. soldiers were coming home in body bags from a "police action" called Vietnam.

The_Tauren13 said:
have a tendency to diss on the popular games, refusing to admit that they, too, are good

There are hordes of games that are popular and are still crap. Deus Ex:IW is a perfect example. Scratch beneath the pretty graphics of Doom 3 and what do you find? A crappy game. Popularity has nothing to do with quality. Though quality sometimes helps spur popularity.

The_Tauren13 said:
dont mind me...

Is that an invitation to ignore you?

magnate

August 26th, 2004, 06:36 AM

Sheap said:
There is no one-size-fits-all solution that does the "right thing" for both combat mages and SCs. No matter what spin you put on it, either your mages won't rout soon enough or your SCs will rout too soon.

Not if your mages have morale 10 and your SCs have morale 30, which is what I tend to find is the case ....

I'm not saying that troopless commanders shouldn't have to make a morale check when another commander (or army) routs, just that it shouldn't be an automatic fail. That defeats the point of having high morale on your SCs!

Also, the PD thing is very important - having that single point of PD is really useful for getting a look at the exact composition of an invading army, so you want to be able to build PD without fear of them screwing up your SCs.

I like Panther's suggestions. When any friendly army routs or dies, all friendly commanders have to make a morale check. If they fail, they rout too. If not, they keep on fighting. Then again when the 2nd army routs etc. That seems both realistic and intuitive. Your mages will flee after a couple of armies rout (they're tired and scared, even if undamaged), but the SCs won't unless badly damaged. It also doesn't require the sort of recoding that the rout-yes and rout-no option would.

Can anybody find anything wrong with it?

CC
P.S. I loved the flying mammoth story - did anyone else think "NOBODY expects the flying mammoth ..."?

magnate

August 26th, 2004, 06:46 AM

Arryn said:

The_Tauren13 said:
ive noticed that fans of underated strategy games that havent recieved the popularity they deserve, such as dominions II

Dom 2 is not "underated". It received glowing reviews from both CG and CGW magazines (which was what prompted me to check out the demo). The only thing "underated" about Dom 2 is the lack of appreciation the devs get for a game they basically did/do in their spare time.

Woah - while not wishing to assist you in hijacking this thread, I can't help but ask, what lack of appreciation? I think Dom2 is the most awesome game I've ever played, the only worthy successor to MoM, right up there with Civ1 and Elite etc. etc. etc., and I'm fairly sure thousands of other people do too, judging by this board alone.

The fact that people gripe about bugs or features they don't like does not, I hope, count as failing to appreciate IW's achievement. If you believe in the power of word of mouth (look at GalCiv), they're not underrated at all. Then there's the glowing reviews. Is there some sort of medal or award they missed out on??

Arryn said:

The_Tauren13 said:
have a tendency to diss on the popular games, refusing to admit that they, too, are good

There are hordes of games that are popular and are still crap. Deus Ex:IW is a perfect example. Scratch beneath the pretty graphics of Doom 3 and what do you find? A crappy game. Popularity has nothing to do with quality. Though quality sometimes helps spur popularity.

Er, yeah. There are also some hugely popular games that are very good indeed. This argument isn't getting either of you anywhere.

CC

Arryn

August 26th, 2004, 06:59 AM

magnate said:
P.S. I loved the flying mammoth story - did anyone else think "NOBODY expects the flying mammoth ..."?

Of course. Flying pachyderms. Can you just picture a castle bracing for an attack. The guard commander tells his lookouts to watch for huge hairy flying beasts. One guard turns to another and whispers,

"What's Sir Justin been drinkin' tonight?" to which the other replies,
"Dunno, but them nobles never share the good stuff. Ain't fair."
"Bah. Flying elephants. Next, he'll have us on the lookout for walking sharks and dancing trees."
"Ain't natural. Damn wizards."

/threads/images/Graemlins/icon01.gif

Arryn

August 26th, 2004, 07:02 AM

magnate said:
Er, yeah. There are also some hugely popular games that are very good indeed.

Such as KoTOR.

magnate said:
This argument isn't getting either of you anywhere.

Indeed. Since when did that ever stop anyone? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif

Pickles

August 26th, 2004, 07:07 AM

Arryn said:
It is perfectly valid to judge a game based on its SP value, alone.

It is, but the games are fundamentally different - both Dom2 & WarcraftIII are better MP (going from dire to excellent in both cases).

Your analysis of Warcraft (more or bigger sticks) just does not sound like the Warcraft I played where you want the right stick for the job.

Arryn said:
It is perfectly valid to judge a game based on its SP value, alone. The majority of computer game players play only in SP.

Computer games are like sex, even when you are playing SP you are thinking about MP.

Pickles

deccan

August 26th, 2004, 07:08 AM

Arryn said:
Such as KoTOR.

Yeah, that was one cool game. Hear about "Jade Empire" yet?

Pickles

August 26th, 2004, 07:20 AM

Someone lost in nested quotes said
"The only thing "underated" about Dom 2 is the lack of
appreciation the devs get for a game they basically did/do in their spare time."

The fact that it was done in their spare time does not make it a better game. Neither does it make the horrible faults (OK the message system) go away. It does make me more ready to accept the problems but only because the core game is so very good.

Plus I agree it is tiring that so many people seem to reject things on the grounds that they are popular. I am sure that here it is mostly due to differing tastes not prejudice though.
Whats KoTOR? Oh knights of the old republic - that was good but not great in the BGII way.

Pickles

Arryn

August 26th, 2004, 07:41 AM

Pickles said:
Computer games are like sex, even when you are playing SP you are thinking about MP.

A stereotypical male fantasy. It's particularly rampant amongst those that are relationship-challenged and spend too much time in auto-erotic endeavors.

Quality is more important than quantity. It applies to both sex and computer games, though it's especially true for sex. You'll grow to appreciate this fact as you get older and (hopefully) wiser. If you happen to have a girlfriend (most hardcore gamers barely understand the concept of there being another sex), ask her if she agrees. And listen to the answer. You might just learn something.

Arryn

August 26th, 2004, 07:52 AM

deccan said:
Yeah, that was one cool game. Hear about "Jade Empire" yet?

Yes. I'm a big fan of BioWare. However, their upcoming game I'm most excited about is ... KoTOR 2. But I have no doubt that I'll be getting JE sometime next year. My favorite game genre is RPGs. I'm anxiously waiting on Call of C. (due out next week) and Vampire:Bloodlines (in about 2 months).

Mark the Merciful

August 26th, 2004, 08:01 AM

And this week's award for humourless and patronising post goes to...

Pickles

August 26th, 2004, 08:36 AM

Arryn said:
Computer games are like sex, even when you are playing SP you are thinking about MP.

A stereotypical male fantasy. It's particularly rampant amongst those that are relationship-challenged and spend too much time in auto-erotic endeavors.

[/quote]

I am not sure you really mean that. You are saying that when men are "perpetrating the sin of Onan" they are NOT thinking about having sex with someone else? How do you know? - I have good reason to believe that in the case of at least one man this is not true. You are also implying that women think differently & have different auto erotic fantasies, about what one wonders? Hmm getting far OT here.

My apologies if you are not a native speaker but you appear to have completely reversed the logic of what I said plus missed the fact that is was, above all, a joke.

Pickles

PS Who is making the CoC computer game.
PPS In the absence of Norfleet it important to maintain some personal animosities, a task which Arryn & I seem to have taken on ourselves

magnate

August 26th, 2004, 08:46 AM

Yeah, not that this thread was originally about anything important, you understand.

Arryn

August 26th, 2004, 08:58 AM

Pickles said:
You are also implying that women think differently & have different auto erotic fantasies,

As a general rule (FWIW), yes we do.

Pickles said:
about what one wonders?

Wonder all you want ...

Pickles said:
Hmm getting far OT here.

Indeed.

Pickles said:
PS Who is making the CoC computer game.

Headfirst. Bethesda (of Morrowind fame) is the publisher. The game's web page can be found here (http://www.callofcthulhu.com/) .

EDIT: the game's been delayed to Feb. of next year, dammit. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

Pickles said:
PPS In the absence of Norfleet it important to maintain some personal animosities, a task which Arryn & I seem to have taken on ourselves

Nope. Graeme beat you to it many months ago. It's been a well-established fact that we mutually despise one another. (Ditto NTJedi.) While GD and I have been civil to one another recently (more a case of just ignoring each other), I'm sure it's merely a temporary abberation and things will return to their normal, heated level, eventually. Well, either heated, or half-baked. It's hard to tell at times.

So, you have a long, long ways to go before you achieve a level of animus that will place you in the exalted ranks of Norfleet et. al. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif

Arryn

August 26th, 2004, 09:03 AM

magnate said:
Yeah, not that this thread was originally about anything important, you understand.

Actually, it wasn't. The topic has been beaten to death (and beyond) over the past 6-8 months. There have been oodles of threads on it. (Do a search and see for yourself.) The devs have, repeatedly, said they don't see anything amiss with the system as is, and the majority of players agree with them. People whining about the subject once or twice a month has achieved, and will achieve, nothing. Well, nothing other than annoying the devs and those who don't feel that the system is broken.

Boron

August 26th, 2004, 09:53 AM

Arryn said:

The Panther said:
Sounds to me like you didn't really play Warcraft 3 if you never went to MP. War 3 MP is extremely good, even though SP ain't all that great. Sounds like it was a GOOD ASSumption after all.

You, too, are making bad assumptions. It is perfectly valid to judge a game based on its SP value, alone. The majority of computer game players play only in SP. You may not like to admit it, but MP players are a minority, albeit a large and disproportionately vocal one. There are plenty of games that are good in SP and great in MP (such as Diablo 2, Call of Duty, Dom 2, just to name three) that I needn't waste time with those that suck in SP and *might* be better than sucky in MP.

warcraft 3 was the biggest disappointment i ever had with a game .
i were a REALLY HUGE fan of blizzard until warcraft 3.
i loved starcraft and diablo 2 .
but warcraft is not a strategygame but a tactical game which is quite brainless .
the SP campaign is actually somewhat entertaining but warcraft 3 multiplay is so stuid + brainless .

your 90 population limit + the heros ruin the game completely .
resourcemanagement is totally unimportant you just need to make 1-2 heros + 10 of the cheapest troops and then kill all monsters for gold + levels and kill the enemy .

you have a real lack of strategies there . just RUSH,RUSH,RUSH .

with 90 population you never have more than about 20-30 soldiers .
and normally you only go to 70 population because the resourcemalus 70% to 40% is not worth the 20 extra population .

so the game is just based around rush + your hero(s) .

a big step backwards compared to starcraft .
furthermore it is completely baffling to me that even in warcraft 3 you can't group more than 12 units in one group ( you don't need it there though ) .

in starcraft every unit had its use and the 200 supply limit was ok . there you could e.g. make a zealots rush , or tech to templers / air force etc.
you could either focus on micro or on macro .
both strats were viable .

in warcraft 3 it is reduced to hero micro .

ok enough complaining about warcraft 3 http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif

in dominions the rout system as it is is perfect.

otherwise i would not build any armies at ALL and just mages + scs .
would be very boring .
this way i have to decide either using 1 sc or using an army + mages . each kind of army has its advantages and disadvantages .

if commanders wouldn't autorout there would really be for 90% of the nations NO need for any armies anymore .

Arryn

August 26th, 2004, 10:21 AM

Boron said:
warcraft 3 was the biggest disappointment i ever had with a game.

That dubious honor, for me, is reserved for MOO3. MOO3 gets /threads/images/Graemlins/icon37.gif/threads/images/Graemlins/icon37.gif/threads/images/Graemlins/icon37.gif/threads/images/Graemlins/icon37.gif/threads/images/Graemlins/icon37.gif

Other notable lemon awards for recent, disappointing, highly-hyped games go to:

Beyond Divinity - /threads/images/Graemlins/icon37.gif/threads/images/Graemlins/icon37.gif/threads/images/Graemlins/icon37.gif/threads/images/Graemlins/icon37.gif
Chrome - /threads/images/Graemlins/icon37.gif/threads/images/Graemlins/icon37.gif/threads/images/Graemlins/icon37.gif/threads/images/Graemlins/icon37.gif
Lionheart - /threads/images/Graemlins/icon37.gif/threads/images/Graemlins/icon37.gif/threads/images/Graemlins/icon37.gif/threads/images/Graemlins/icon37.gif
JA2:Wildfire - /threads/images/Graemlins/icon37.gif/threads/images/Graemlins/icon37.gif/threads/images/Graemlins/icon37.gif/threads/images/Graemlins/icon37.gif

Deus Ex: IW - /threads/images/Graemlins/icon37.gif/threads/images/Graemlins/icon37.gif/threads/images/Graemlins/icon37.gif
Victoria - /threads/images/Graemlins/icon37.gif/threads/images/Graemlins/icon37.gif/threads/images/Graemlins/icon37.gif

But WC3 does earn /threads/images/Graemlins/icon37.gif/threads/images/Graemlins/icon37.gif/threads/images/Graemlins/icon37.gif/threads/images/Graemlins/icon37.gif

magnate

August 26th, 2004, 10:29 AM

Arryn said:

magnate said:
Yeah, not that this thread was originally about anything important, you understand.

Actually, it wasn't. The topic has been beaten to death (and beyond) over the past 6-8 months. There have been oodles of threads on it. (Do a search and see for yourself.) The devs have, repeatedly, said they don't see anything amiss with the system as is, and the majority of players agree with them. People whining about the subject once or twice a month has achieved, and will achieve, nothing. Well, nothing other than annoying the devs and those who don't feel that the system is broken.

Blimey Arryn, don't you have a sense of humour? Or are you just so stupid that you need everything spelt out with an icon?

"Whining about the subject", if it continues to explore other options and pros and cons, will eventually lead to the game becoming even better, which is what everybody wants. It is supremely arrogant of you to consider the subject closed simply because a majority agrees with you.

CC

Gandalf Parker

August 26th, 2004, 10:42 AM

magnate said:

Arryn said:

magnate said:
Yeah, not that this thread was originally about anything important, you understand.

Actually, it wasn't. The topic has been beaten to death (and beyond) over the past 6-8 months. There have been oodles of threads on it. (Do a search and see for yourself.) The devs have, repeatedly, said they don't see anything amiss with the system as is, and the majority of players agree with them. People whining about the subject once or twice a month has achieved, and will achieve, nothing. Well, nothing other than annoying the devs and those who don't feel that the system is broken.

Blimey Arryn, don't you have a sense of humour? Or are you just so stupid that you need everything spelt out with an icon?

"Whining about the subject", if it continues to explore other options and pros and cons, will eventually lead to the game becoming even better, which is what everybody wants. It is supremely arrogant of you to consider the subject closed simply because a majority agrees with you.

CC

Ive scrolled back a page full of Posts and couldnt quite pin down what it WAS that anyone was "whining" about. This thread is in danger.

Arryn

August 26th, 2004, 10:43 AM

magnate said:
Or are you just so stupid that you need everything spelt out with an icon?

It is "supremely arrogant" of you to assume that anyone who disagrees with you is "stupid". It's also childish of you to resort to name-calling in order to make your point.

magnate said:
It is supremely arrogant of you to consider the subject closed simply because a majority agrees with you.

I never said it was closed. I *implied* that it's a waste of time. A distinction that you don't seem able to grasp. Perhaps if you'd ceased ranting at me long enough to actually read what I wrote, you wouldn't have missed that small, yet important detail.

Boron

August 26th, 2004, 10:49 AM

Arryn said:
JA2:Wildfire - /threads/images/Graemlins/icon37.gif/threads/images/Graemlins/icon37.gif/threads/images/Graemlins/icon37.gif/threads/images/Graemlins/icon37.gif
Victoria - /threads/images/Graemlins/icon37.gif/threads/images/Graemlins/icon37.gif/threads/images/Graemlins/icon37.gif

oh what is ja2 : wildfire ?
i loved basic jagged alliance 2 and i even bought 1 expansion disk for it which was not too good but i don't remember the name .

what do you not like with victoria ?
i like paradox games but since i discovered dominions they now seem so inferior http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

i personally like victoria basically and think it is good but the revolution system is very unpleasant there and stopped me from playing it more .
conquering china is a nightmare http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/skull.gif
each day lots of revolutions for 10 or 20 years until nationalism is gone http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif
1 division in each province is enough to kill all rebels but with the size of china that are 200+ divisions which are not so easy to achieve in victoria .

eu 2 is a really nice game but too simple and gets boring once you have 100+ provinces .

hoi is great but after researching all techs it becomes boring too and with the stupid convoy / supply system world conquest is hard work there not really enjoyable too .
it is easy but hard / unpleasant work http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

victoria has enough complexity but the revolution system is just stupid there with daily revolutions .

i am really looking forward to hoi 2 though because i hope it combines all strength of the paradox games .
a victoria without revolutions but dissent like in hoi i would really enjoy http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

hoi 2 seems to become a good combo of hoi + victoria http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/cool.gif

Boron

August 26th, 2004, 10:53 AM

p.s.

arryn how long did you play eu 2 , hoi , victoria ?
have you ever finished a wc in any of those 3 ?

i was always bored before i reached that . in hoi i stopped as germany after russia + britain were dead and the usa had no airforce left and was ripe to invasion .
in eu 2 i always stopped after controlling about 150 provinces ( about 2/3 of europe ) because i saw no further challenge .

victoria i haven't played so much because shortly after getting victoria i discovered dominons http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

The_Tauren13

August 26th, 2004, 11:03 AM

Arryn and everyone else egging him on: chill out. this forum doesnt need any more flamewars.

back to the subject of the post. here is magnate's suggestion which was buried in all the babble:

magnate said:
Not if your mages have morale 10 and your SCs have morale 30, which is what I tend to find is the case ....

I'm not saying that troopless commanders shouldn't have to make a morale check when another commander (or army) routs, just that it shouldn't be an automatic fail. That defeats the point of having high morale on your SCs!

Also, the PD thing is very important - having that single point of PD is really useful for getting a look at the exact composition of an invading army, so you want to be able to build PD without fear of them screwing up your SCs.

I like Panther's suggestions. When any friendly army routs or dies, all friendly commanders have to make a morale check. If they fail, they rout too. If not, they keep on fighting. Then again when the 2nd army routs etc. That seems both realistic and intuitive. Your mages will flee after a couple of armies rout (they're tired and scared, even if undamaged), but the SCs won't unless badly damaged. It also doesn't require the sort of recoding that the rout-yes and rout-no option would.

Can anybody find anything wrong with it?

sounds like a good solution, but if the devs dont feel like changing it i must admit the current system works well enough

magnate

August 26th, 2004, 11:08 AM

Arryn said:
It is "supremely arrogant" of you to assume that anyone who disagrees with you is "stupid". It's also childish of you to resort to name-calling in order to make your point.

You have an interesting tendency to try to score points by twisting what other people write. I never said you were stupid because you disagree with me. I said you were stupid because you gave a serious response to an obviously jocular post.

If you really want to be pedantic, stupid is an adjective, not a name. Was it childish not to use a euphemism instead? Perhaps.

You also try to make people feel small by quoting their own text back at them, usually out of context. I can really see why some people dislike you. You give female gamers a very bad name.

Arryn said:

magnate said:
It is supremely arrogant of you to consider the subject closed simply because a majority agrees with you.

I never said it was closed. I *implied* that it's a waste of time. A distinction that you don't seem able to grasp. Perhaps if you'd ceased ranting at me long enough to actually read what I wrote, you wouldn't have missed that small, yet important detail.

Again, you are trying to present yourself as in some way superior, this time by drawing utterly an spurious distinction between your choice of words and mine to describe the same thing.

If you actually allowed people to disagree with you, you wouldn't have to argue so hard.

CC

Arryn

August 26th, 2004, 11:09 AM

Boron said:
oh what is ja2 : wildfire ?
i loved basic jagged alliance 2 and i even bought 1 expansion disk for it which was not too good but i don't remember the name .

An expansion pack for $20, which is essentially a buggy-as-hell and unsupported-by-anyone mod. You'd do much better, by far, to download the excellent mod Urban Chaos from this site (http://www.jamodsquad.com/english/) .

Boron said:
what do you not like with victoria ?

The list is long. It begins with the massive lack of documentation for a game that is very complex (much more complex than HoI) and not at all intuitive. It continues with the enormous number of major bugs the game continues to have. And it ends with the fact that underneath it all is the lame Paradox AI which is in all the EU-engined games and that cripples SP play in EU2, HoI, and Victoria. I've condensed my gripes into 3 brief sentences, but the depth of my dislike for the game is much more detailed and lengthy. This isn't the forum for airing such, so I'm trying to spare disinterested readers a long rant on it.

Boron said:
hoi is great but after researching all techs it becomes boring too

It's too easy as a human to conquer the world in HoI SP, even with pathetically small nations, nevermind military/economic powerhouses like Germany. As Germany, I have won "WW2" by the end of 1939, by the end of 1940 I have an empire that would have been the envy of Imperial Rome or Alexander, and by the end of 1941 there is nothing to stop me from total world conquest long before the game's deadline (or anyone else's possible development of atomic weapons, not that even atomic bombs could stop me). The AI is just not even remotely up to the task of handling a game this complex. But to Paradox's credit, they've at least exposed the AI to user modification, which has turned a game that I otherwise would have shelved 2 years ago into something that still resides on my HDD. I wish that IW would do likewise and open up the Dom 2 AI to user modification.

magnate

August 26th, 2004, 11:16 AM

The_Tauren13 said:
Arryn and everyone else egging him on: chill out. this forum doesnt need any more flamewars.

Oops, sorry, replied too quickly. Promise I won't respond to the next one. Arryn is a she, btw.

The_Tauren13 said:
back to the subject of the post. here is magnate's suggestion which was buried in all the babble:

magnate said:
Not if your mages have morale 10 and your SCs have morale 30, which is what I tend to find is the case ....

I'm not saying that troopless commanders shouldn't have to make a morale check when another commander (or army) routs, just that it shouldn't be an automatic fail. That defeats the point of having high morale on your SCs!

Also, the PD thing is very important - having that single point of PD is really useful for getting a look at the exact composition of an invading army, so you want to be able to build PD without fear of them screwing up your SCs.

I like Panther's suggestions. When any friendly army routs or dies, all friendly commanders have to make a morale check. If they fail, they rout too. If not, they keep on fighting. Then again when the 2nd army routs etc. That seems both realistic and intuitive. Your mages will flee after a couple of armies rout (they're tired and scared, even if undamaged), but the SCs won't unless badly damaged. It also doesn't require the sort of recoding that the rout-yes and rout-no option would.

Can anybody find anything wrong with it?

sounds like a good solution, but if the devs dont feel like changing it i must admit the current system works well enough

Thanks for bring that back to the foreground. I played my first few games with standard troops and only really got into SCs thanks to Boron suggesting I check out ice devils. Only now do I see how odd it is that they flee when the chaff is killed even if they themselves are untouched. I'd really like a word from the devs on this. Maybe there's a reason why it wouldn't work. In the poll thread Boron said it would make battlemages too powerful, but I don't understand that. They don't usually have very high morale - and even if they did stay on the battlefield, they might well die once all the cannon fodder is gone.

CC

Arryn

August 26th, 2004, 11:17 AM

Boron said:
arryn how long did you play eu 2 , hoi , victoria ?
have you ever finished a wc in any of those 3 ?

No. I haven't that much patience for something that's inevitable.

Boron said:
i was always bored before i reached that . in hoi i stopped as germany after russia + britain were dead and the usa had no airforce left and was ripe to invasion .
in eu 2 i always stopped after controlling about 150 provinces ( about 2/3 of europe ) because i saw no further challenge .

In HoI, about the same point. In EU2, once I've knocked out 2 of the 3 major powers (Spain, France, and Britain) the outcome isn't in doubt and it's only a matter of time. I played EU2 just to read the passing event Messages. The game itself presented no strategic challenge in SP. I stopped playing the game because Paradox never fixed some rather glaring bugs (bugs other than the lame AI).

Boron said:
victoria i haven't played so much because shortly after getting victoria i discovered dominons http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

I, too, discovered Dom 2 shortly after getting Vicky. Dom 2 saved me from wasting countless hours trying to work around Vicky's problems.

The_Tauren13

August 26th, 2004, 11:18 AM

Arryn said:
I wish that IW would do likewise and open up the Dom 2 AI to user modification.

that would actually be really cool. i mean, that way you can always have a semi-balanced game vs the AI by modding it to be similar to your skill level

Arryn

August 26th, 2004, 11:31 AM

The_Tauren13 said:
that would actually be really cool. i mean, that way you can always have a semi-balanced game vs the AI by modding it to be similar to your skill level

I hadn't considered that particular application. Not a bad idea at all.

What I had in mind is such things that people complain about such as AI spellcasting behavior, AI troop-building preferences, that units commanded to attack the enemy's rear actually attack the rear (and not the rear of the closest unit), etc. etc.

Oh, and we could throw routing behavior into the pot while we're at it. /threads/images/Graemlins/icon24.gif

Boron

August 26th, 2004, 11:45 AM

Arryn said:

Boron said:
victoria i haven't played so much because shortly after getting victoria i discovered dominons http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

I, too, discovered Dom 2 shortly after getting Vicky. Dom 2 saved me from wasting countless hours trying to work around Vicky's problems.

a question :
did you play all paradox games with the newest patches ?

they get more challenging this way.
i am not sure but i think you haven't perhaps .

in eu 1.08 you earn much less money and inflation is harder to combat . diplo sliders are much better too .
so it becomes a bit more challenging .

hoi in 1.06 the greatly improved the ai .
russia has there normally about 300 divisions in 1939/40 so the early victory with germany is not so easy anymore .
and the ai lands more than 1-2 units on beachheads .

it is still from good but a big improvement to all patches before .

finally curious about vicky :
with 1.03b the latest patch i played it it was quite good most bugs were gone .

i don't really get your point about the manual .
for victoria fans made wickyvicky or called similiar it is like the manual addenda from liga .
and the discussion on victoria board was good too so with victoria manual it is exactly the same like with the dominions manual it is ok but leaves many questions open .

the ai in victoria is probably the worst though still http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

what i hate with all paradox games that they only force you indirect to not grow too big too soon .
not the ai stops you but in eu 2 revolutions from different religions + really huge stability costs .
in vicky the same but more severe .

the real problem though is that they ALL lack depths :
everybody has the same armies when he researches all techs .
so it is simply getting a bigger army + using the right troops but thats really easy since there are only about 10-15 different types .

unfortunately you can reduce it to 1-2 types :
in hoi the light 12 speed tanks for encirclement + marines with artillery brigade .
in vicky guards , tanks/artillery for special purposes .

all disappointing /threads/images/Graemlins/ooo.gif

the only game which comes close here to dominions 2 is master of orion 2 (perhaps space empires is similiar i haven't played it though because iirc it is realtime and i prefer turn based http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif )

Boron

August 26th, 2004, 11:55 AM

magnate said:
Thanks for bring that back to the foreground. I played my first few games with standard troops and only really got into SCs thanks to Boron suggesting I check out ice devils. Only now do I see how odd it is that they flee when the chaff is killed even if they themselves are untouched. I'd really like a word from the devs on this. Maybe there's a reason why it wouldn't work. In the poll thread Boron said it would make battlemages too powerful, but I don't understand that. They don't usually have very high morale - and even if they did stay on the battlefield, they might well die once all the cannon fodder is gone.
CC

if they would stay without troops i would guard them with some antisc SCS .
the battlemages would be quite save and do all the killing with their spells .

your point with 1 pd and then the SCS routing is very good .
If you attack you can send more than 1 SC in . it is dangerous though because if one is killed all flee .

for the PD issue there is only 1 solution which is expensive : make immortal SCS they don't rout in positive dominion which you should have in your own provinces .
wraith lords are excellent scs but very expensive .

panthers suggestion is bad because as you said this way SCS would never rout because they never fail a morale check . this would make them too powerful .
furthermore it would make one key feature of immortality useless : not routing in friendly dominion !

illwinter has really done an impressive job here with the current routing system . it is not intuitive and perhaps not realistic but balancewise it is perfect .

Cainehill

August 26th, 2004, 12:05 PM

magnate said:

Arryn said:
It is "supremely arrogant" of you to assume that anyone who disagrees with you is "stupid". It's also childish of you to resort to name-calling in order to make your point.

You have an interesting tendency to try to score points by twisting what other people write. I never said you were stupid because you disagree with me. I said you were stupid because you gave a serious response to an obviously jocular post.

You didn't use a smiley. And you're bloody stupid if you think or expect that people can tell when you're trying to be jocular in a pure text medium when you _don't_ use emoticons or some other means to display the mood in which something was written.

This is a longtime problem with the internet and text mediums. Intelligent people, and even rutabagas if they're been on the net long enough, figured this out and use things like " http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif " or " <sarcasm> ... </sarcasm> " or whatnot.

You don't have the clues of tone of voice, of body language, and usually not even the benefit of some knowledge of the other person.

And you posted a one liner that was at least as easily interpretted as sarcasm or bitterness than good natured humor / joking.

That's ... not particularly bright. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif And even worse is your response of indignity because someone didn't have the telepathy to know how you meant it!

Oh - that'll be five pounds for the tutoring in basic communications theory 101. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

You also try to make people feel small by quoting their own text back at them, usually out of context. I can really see why some people dislike you. You give female gamers a very bad name.

Oh, Goddess forbid that anyone use what someone wrote against them! Maybe you'd prefer that they editting your words, misattributed who said what, and used subtle innuendo in conjunction with the words that you didn't exactly say? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

I'm also curious how Arryn used what you wrote out of context. After all - it _was_ just a one line sentence of a post. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif Hard to use that out of context.

But hey! On a lighter note, I appreciate the fact that you're working to make _my_ gender look bad, because it makes me look better in comparison. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

Cheerio!

Arryn

August 26th, 2004, 12:12 PM

Boron said:
did you play all paradox games with the newest patches ?

Yes, I have.

Boron said:
in eu 1.08 you earn much less money and inflation is harder to combat . diplo sliders are much better too .
so it becomes a bit more challenging .

Those are peripheral issues to other things that are fundamentally wrong with the game, the worst being the AI.

Boron said:
hoi in 1.06 the greatly improved the ai .

I play HoI with 1.06c and CORE 0.84. CORE makes the game much more realistic and challenging, yet it still falls far short of being truly challenging in SP. Unlike Dom 2.

Boron said:
finally curious about vicky :
with 1.03b the latest patch i played it it was quite good most bugs were gone .

My BF disagrees, and he still plays the game (unlike me).

Boron said:
what i hate with all paradox games that they only force you indirect to not grow too big too soon .
not the ai stops you but in eu 2 revolutions from different religions + really huge stability costs .
in vicky the same but more severe .

There are some really ugly and ridiculously unrealistic/ahistorical things that happen in Vicky after the turn of the century if you're deemed by the AI(s) as a "threat".

IMO, Paradox is very good at conceptualizing / designing games, but not very good at implementing them. Their biggest shortcoming is a marked lack of usability testing, which would quickly reveal the numerous UI flaws in their games. They also desperately need someone with experience in AI (preferably neural-net AI). Of course, people with experience in AI are in severely short supply in the entire gaming industry. It's just that the games that most need good AI (ie: strategy games) are often the ones with the worst AIs. Probably has something to do with the genre's popularity and typical budgets.

Boron said:
the only game which comes close here to dominions 2 is master of orion 2 (perhaps space empires is similiar i haven't played it though because iirc it is realtime and i prefer turn based http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif )

SE4 is TB. So is GalCiv. You should try both.

The Last RT grand strategy game I played (prior to EU/EU2/HoI/Vicky) was Star Wars Rebellion. A game that should have been TB. RT brought nothing good to the game. Especially since the morons who made the game didn't allow for orders while the game was paused.

Kristoffer O

August 26th, 2004, 12:25 PM

Thanks for bring that back to the foreground. I played my first few games with standard troops and only really got into SCs thanks to Boron suggesting I check out ice devils. Only now do I see how odd it is that they flee when the chaff is killed even if they themselves are untouched. I'd really like a word from the devs on this. Maybe there's a reason why it wouldn't work. In the poll thread Boron said it would make battlemages too powerful, but I don't understand that. They don't usually have very high morale - and even if they did stay on the battlefield, they might well die once all the cannon fodder is gone.

CC

There is nothing that distinguishes a SC from any other commander. Commanders rout when their armies rout. Mages and commanders rarely can stand up to an army by themselves. Therefore commanders follow their routing armies.

SC's are exceptions in that you want them to fight on. The categorization of a SC is highly subjective. Is a Banelord an SC? Is a Banelord with a wraith sword an SC? Is your Wight mage with a wraith sword an SC? The Lamia queen with a wraith sword and an active astral shield might well work as a SC, but you would never want your pretender arch mage with the same equipment to fight on when the enemy army has beaten your troops.

The rout rules allows an exeption to lone commanders. Therefore SC's and pretender monsters can conquer provinces by themselves, but if they follow and lead armies they are subject to the normal routing rules.

There are other reasons as well. Do you want me to elaborate or is this OK for now? (I almost fell in the teacher trap and asked you to come up with two other reasons the rout works as it does http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif )

Sly Frog

August 26th, 2004, 12:29 PM

Arryn said:

The Panther said:
This whole idea of a lone commander who will not rout just because he has no troops is completely bogus.

I don't know where you got this silly notion. A lone commander will rout, unless that commander is an immortal in friendly dominion, or the commander is berserk. What doesn't make sense about it?

I just assumed it was pretty clear. Here's an example. If I am a badass and all powerful SC alone against a large enemy army, I will often slaughter everything on the field. If I am a badass and all powerful SC who has a small contingent of archers supporting me, we'll all rout off the field in the first turn.

That's goofy, that's non-intuitive. Not explaining it wasn't an attempt to take a shot at the devs by calling it goofy and non-intuitive; I just thought that the problems with the routing system were pretty obvious.

It may work as a *game*, because you can learn the system and start to do non-obvious things (like don't support your badass commanders). That doesn't say that it couldn't be changed so that it made more sense.

Arryn

August 26th, 2004, 12:30 PM

Cainehill gets today's Knight in Shiny Armor award { http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/beerglass.gif } for his valiant efforts at rescuing the damsel from the perfidious assaults of the vile Saxon ruffian /threads/images/Graemlins/icon19.gif.

Sly Frog

August 26th, 2004, 12:33 PM

Ironhawk said:
I agree with cheezeninja. Is the system "realistic"? No. Does it work well? Yes. But why get caught up in realism if this is just a game? A fantasy game at that. Balance is all that really matters in the end and the system, as it stands, has that.

I mean, sure, request or even propose a change to the system. By all means! But IMO, its not a crippling issue that requires immediate dev response. As you gain more experience with the morale system you will be able to see past its quirks and appreciate its value.

Because unless you have a good reason for making something the opposite of what is intuitive and normal, you are creating a barrier for entry to new players that doesn't need to be there.

I kept playing the game, but I've got to tell you that I've rolled my eyes on more than a few occasions at having strange things happen in the routing system (oh look, my badass pretender just routed because the lion I brought into battle ran away).

Arryn

August 26th, 2004, 12:39 PM

Sly Frog said:
I just assumed it was pretty clear. Here's an example. If I am a badass and all powerful SC alone against a large enemy army, I will often slaughter everything on the field. If I am a badass and all powerful SC who has a small contingent of archers supporting me, we'll all rout off the field in the first turn.

That's goofy, that's non-intuitive. Not explaining it wasn't an attempt to take a shot at the devs by calling it goofy and non-intuitive; I just thought that the problems with the routing system were pretty obvious.

It may work as a *game*, because you can learn the system and start to do non-obvious things (like don't support your badass commanders). That doesn't say that it couldn't be changed so that it made more sense.

But, as Kris so aptly said a few Posts above, how does the game know that you're a "badass"? The game has no idea what's a SC and what's not.

BTW, I didn't think you were taking a shot at the devs (though I can see how you might think that I thought that). I simply thought that they weren't going to pay much attention to adjectives lacking any further explanation. In the context in which you consider the issue, yes it might appear "goofy". But the system is consistent, once one understands it. And I don't think anyone's ever claimed that Dom 2 is "intuitive". Far from it. If it was, this forum wouldn't be nearly so busy.

Gandalf Parker

August 26th, 2004, 12:43 PM

Kristoffer O said:

There is nothing that distinguishes a SC from any other commander. Commanders rout when their armies rout. Mages and commanders rarely can stand up to an army by themselves. Therefore commanders follow their routing armies.

The rout rules allows an exeption to lone commanders. Therefore SC's and pretender monsters can conquer provinces by themselves, but if they follow and lead armies they are subject to the normal routing rules.

So what we have is????
commander with troops
should be done when you want the commander to rout after his troops are gone
commander with no troops
the SC you want to fight on until he is the Last guy standing and takes alot of damage

and then isnt there
commander with guards
not so likely to rout when troops die off but will if guards die off

and of course there is always the random variables in the rolls which make it a chance of happening anyway no matter how the battle is going. It all sounds like a pretty good spread. The only thing left open is some cases where you done get to choose which of the Categorys your commander is in. Such as Moloch with his imps (being discussed in another thread)

Arryn

August 26th, 2004, 12:55 PM

Sly Frog said:
Because unless you have a good reason for making something the opposite of what is intuitive and normal, you are creating a barrier for entry to new players that doesn't need to be there.

No, you don't have to have a good reason at all for making things awkward. It just happens. Typically because the designers fail to give sufficient consideration to a game's usability. This is often most evident in game UI. How many games have we seen which don't allow for in-mission saves (Giants, Starship Troopers, etc.)? Or hotkeys for common actions (Dom 2 is guilty of this to a degree)? Or a need for an excessive amount of clicking and wading through menus (MOO3)? Or a lack of having all the info you need to (micro)manage your empire readily at hand in easy-to-digest screens (Dom 2 could stand some improvement here as well)? As for keeping such awkwardness? That happens when the perceived (by the devs) cost/benefit ratio of fixing such issues is outweighed by the effort involved or other priorities (or, in the case of some games, devs who are blind to their product's shortcomings, or too stubborn to do anything about it, or who won't fix things unless they get paid for it).

Boron

August 26th, 2004, 12:58 PM

Sly Frog said:

Arryn said:

The Panther said:
This whole idea of a lone commander who will not rout just because he has no troops is completely bogus.

I don't know where you got this silly notion. A lone commander will rout, unless that commander is an immortal in friendly dominion, or the commander is berserk. What doesn't make sense about it?

I just assumed it was pretty clear. Here's an example. If I am a badass and all powerful SC alone against a large enemy army, I will often slaughter everything on the field. If I am a badass and all powerful SC who has a small contingent of archers supporting me, we'll all rout off the field in the first turn.

That's goofy, that's non-intuitive. Not explaining it wasn't an attempt to take a shot at the devs by calling it goofy and non-intuitive; I just thought that the problems with the routing system were pretty obvious.

It may work as a *game*, because you can learn the system and start to do non-obvious things (like don't support your badass commanders). That doesn't say that it couldn't be changed so that it made more sense.

your sc can be totally badass but he still hasn't a chance alone against special armies who are cheaper than the sc but antisc .

but when you take troops with him he is no longer a sc but with the army he is extremely brutal .

if you take with you just a few archers than it is your fault and simply stupid .
you did just wrong scripting / troop chose :
just take a few 50 morale troops with hold orders ( like vine ogres ) or if you want to really support him take with devils or something like this .
this way routing is extremely unlikely .

the only thing you lose is magic movement when you rely on cloud trapeze .

so i don't see why you are all complaining at all because the solutions are so simple :

SC + cloud trapeze against weaker armies

give the sc an army against stronger enemies but lose cloud trapeze . you can still teleport though or fairy trod or stygian path for magic movement .

if you chose the RIGHT troops the army is no curse but a real bless .

an almost perfect routing blocker is the siege golem .
immune to all kinds of magic , high protection + hp + siege ability .
scripted to hold + attack closest even 1 siege golem is haaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrdddddddddddd to kill .
with the 2 turns of waiting your scs are already in meelee or buffed .
so the siege golem isn't attacked severe most probably at all .

early game : vine ogres as routing preventers , late game 1-2 lone siege golem(s) .

The_Tauren13

August 26th, 2004, 01:09 PM

Arryn said:
Cainehill gets today's Knight in Shiny Armor award { http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/beerglass.gif } for his valiant efforts at rescuing the damsel from the perfidious assaults of the vile Saxon ruffian /threads/images/Graemlins/icon19.gif.

and the flamer of the year award for trying to rekindle another's argument and partake in it himself

Gandalf Parker said:
So what we have is????
commander with troops
should be done when you want the commander to rout after his troops are gone
commander with no troops
the SC you want to fight on until he is the Last guy standing and takes alot of damage

and then isnt there
commander with guards
not so likely to rout when troops die off but will if guards die off

and of course there is always the random variables in the rolls which make it a chance of happening anyway no matter how the battle is going. It all sounds like a pretty good spread. The only thing left open is some cases where you done get to choose which of the Categorys your commander is in. Such as Moloch with his imps (being discussed in another thread)

but what is the problem with panther's suggestion; making it morale based. thus, a commander with 30 morale and hardly any damage/fatigue, probably an SC, will stick around, but a commander with 10 morale and 60 fatigue will run off, probably a mage.

Boron

August 26th, 2004, 01:25 PM

Arryn said:
I play HoI with 1.06c and CORE 0.84. CORE makes the game much more realistic and challenging, yet it still falls far short of being truly challenging in SP. Unlike Dom 2.

sorry but how can you say dom 2 is challenging in SP ? dominions 2 really shines in MP http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

but in sp it is like HoI and most other strategy games . perhaps slightly better but in sp if you chose special nations : ryleh , ermor , pan cw there is no challenge at all .
almost the same with abysia / mictlan when you use blood heavy .
after earlygame no challenge
to a slightly lesser extent true with all the magically extreme flexible nations like pythium / arco .
if you survive until midgame no challenge too just clamhoard + make lots of uberscs , battlemages with strong troops etc.

dominions 2 is only challenging in sp if you take first special houserules and second take the nation who does worst under this special houserules .
furthermore you have to forbid yourself the use of scs.

the only way i see is as tauren suggested to let Users mod ai scripts . this way i could perhaps make the ai use my own battlescripts for lategame http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif if it is possible then everybody can make 1-2 scripts for his favourite nation(s).
then everybody sends them to illwinter or better somebody with lots of patience + insight ( like zen + gandalf ) and he choses 4-5 scripts for each nation which he thinks are extremely good .
then the ai always choses random one of these scripts and would probably play really good .

Arryn said:

IMO, Paradox is very good at conceptualizing / designing games, but not very good at implementing them. Their biggest shortcoming is a marked lack of usability testing, which would quickly reveal the numerous UI flaws in their games. They also desperately need someone with experience in AI (preferably neural-net AI). Of course, people with experience in AI are in severely short supply in the entire gaming industry. It's just that the games that most need good AI (ie: strategy games) are often the ones with the worst AIs. Probably has something to do with the genre's popularity and typical budgets.

strategy games are with shooters the most popular genre .

blizzard with starcraft or microsoft with age of empires 2 had surely a huge budget .
especially the starcraft ai was not bad .
but it is easy with only about 25 units in total . if you have this in mind the ai was VERY poor once you had mp experience .

in a game with a friend we 2 won always against 6 ais on the hunters .

alpha zentauri has imo a quite good ai though .
in magic the gathering the ai used their decks quite well too given that it is almost as complex as dominions ( about 800 different cards i think with both extensions ).
these 2 games are positive examples for a quite good ai .
a third one is heroes of might and magic 1-3 .

Arryn said:

Boron said:
the only game which comes close here to dominions 2 is master of orion 2 (perhaps space empires is similiar i haven't played it though because iirc it is realtime and i prefer turn based http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif )

SE4 is TB. So is GalCiv. You should try both.

The Last RT grand strategy game I played (prior to EU/EU2/HoI/Vicky) was Star Wars Rebellion. A game that should have been TB. RT brought nothing good to the game. Especially since the morons who made the game didn't allow for orders while the game was paused.

what is your impression of starcraft ?
i think it is still the best true RTS game .

i have star wars rebellion myself but with pause like the paradox games it is basically TB . star wars rebellion was not as good as master of orion and the star wars bonus was not enough to compensate though i love starwars .

i was interested in trying Galactic civs but i heard that it is not deep and too simple and according to reviews / screenshots i believed it .

i will give space empires probably a closer look though http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Boron

August 26th, 2004, 01:32 PM

The_Tauren13 said:
[but what is the problem with panther's suggestion; making it morale based. thus, a commander with 30 morale and hardly any damage/fatigue, probably an SC, will stick around, but a commander with 10 morale and 60 fatigue will run off, probably a mage.

the problem is with panthers suggestion mages rout easier .

as it is if you take some strong troops with your mages they almost NEVER rout ( until they fail a morale check in melee ) .

with your suggestion the mages have to do a moralecheck everytime an army routs so much more moralechecks and they will rout more often .

in the current system leaders can rout too if they are severely wounded . so it is already like your suggestion with the only exeption that once there is no army present + 1 leader dies all expect berserk + immortal leaders rout automatically .

the current system is imo really great .
your suggestions would imo be not improvements but worsenings http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif
as it is it is very very balanced .

with your suggestion troops would become totally unimportant and scs would become even stronger .

The_Tauren13

August 26th, 2004, 01:44 PM

Boron said:
especially the starcraft ai was not bad .
but it is easy with only about 25 units in total . if you have this in mind the ai was VERY poor once you had mp experience .

in a game with a friend we 2 won always against 6 ais on the hunters .

lemme guess... BGH, not the real hunters. what do you expect? of course the AI sucks on lame *** money maps; that was not the way the game was intended to be played. you could never win a 2v6 on any REAL map ( unless you exploit the problem with them chasing you all over the place with their workers at the beginning if you attack them, but that is no better than cheating ).

i hate how the starcraft community does nothing but play those [censored] up maps with endless money /threads/images/Graemlins/mad.gif /threads/images/Graemlins/mad.gif /threads/images/Graemlins/mad.gif really screws up the game and now it isnt fun to play any more

Boron

August 26th, 2004, 01:52 PM

The_Tauren13 said:

Boron said:
especially the starcraft ai was not bad .
but it is easy with only about 25 units in total . if you have this in mind the ai was VERY poor once you had mp experience .

in a game with a friend we 2 won always against 6 ais on the hunters .

lemme guess... BGH, not the real hunters. what do you expect? of course the AI sucks on lame *** money maps; that was not the way the game was intended to be played. you could never win a 2v6 on any REAL map ( unless you exploit the problem with them chasing you all over the place with their workers at the beginning if you attack them, but that is no better than cheating ).

i hate how the starcraft community does nothing but play those [censored] up maps with endless money /threads/images/Graemlins/mad.gif /threads/images/Graemlins/mad.gif /threads/images/Graemlins/mad.gif really screws up the game and now it isnt fun to play any more

no it was NORMAL hunters .
on bgh i could win myself against 4-5 ais easy .

we 2 vs the 6 ais on normal hunters was challenging but not too hard .

we both played protos , builded 10-20 photon cannons on the entry to our base + 10-20 berserks .
this holded off the ai long enough .
then lots of scouts + some corsairs and we took one ai after the other out .

only the initial rush is a problem and can fail if you are very unlucky . but against 6 random ais we won most of our games .

one of my friends got internet later then me . he developed a special berserkerrush where he could win against 7 zerg ais alone .

Kristoffer O

August 26th, 2004, 01:52 PM

if you take with you just a few archers than it is your fault and simply stupid .

It's not stupid unless you know how the system works.

There is nothing such thing as common sense in computer programmed actions, only what devs consider rational solutions and responses to given situations. Responses have to be based on anticipated results and problems as well as simplicity.

The current system does not reflect common sense in every situation. It is a rule that is be based on common sense and general utilability (is this an english word at all?).

If you understand the premises the rule is (hopefully) acceptable.

Adjustments could be done, but it would risk making the system opaque and more unintuitive. The current system gives the player control if s/he is aware of how the rules work.

Cainehill

August 26th, 2004, 02:02 PM

The_Tauren13 said:
(Cainehill gets) the flamer of the year award for trying to rekindle another's argument and partake in it himself

First, I don't think you understand what a flame is, if you think that was a flame, and most definately if you think that would come close to a "flame/flamer of the year award". Perhaps you haven't been on the internet long....

I gave Magnate information he didn't consider, and if I used the word 'stupid', well - that word had certainly been flying back and forth already. It wasn't a flame - it was an abrasively toned educational post, and there is a big difference between the two.

but what is the problem with panther's suggestion; making it morale based. thus, a commander with 30 morale and hardly any damage/fatigue, probably an SC, will stick around, but a commander with 10 morale and 60 fatigue will run off, probably a mage.

What are the problems with this? For one: all Pretenders and Prophets have a morale of 30. So, let's see - a Crone pretender with her whopping 9 base HPs is going to stick around after her knights and infantry have been slaughtered. Likewise the 10 HP mage pretender will keep on casting spells until surrounded and killed. Say, this is a great idea! After all, the first hit they take, they'll almost certainly finally rout.

Oops. First hit they take, they're probably dead. Oh well - no biggie, people aren't taking light weight human-ish rainbow Pretenders anyways, right?

On the other paw, it lets big honking SCs bring in a bunch of chafe to soak up casualties for them while they're casting their buffs. The chafe finally routs and gets out of the SCs way.

So, it also makes SCs a lot more powerful, as though they really need that.

If a commander brings troops, it presumably has a use for them. If the troops get slaughtered (or run away), that commander presumably doesn't want to stay on the field.

If it _does_ want to stay on the field, it should either not bring the troops, or bring troops that will stay alive long enough for the SC to do its work.

There's a number of ways to manage this; the simplest is to take a crippled foot soldier, stick him in a rear corner with "Hold and Attack" orders.

Yes, some of the things you have to do are counter-intuitive, but this isn't a military simulation / tactical model, and doesn't pretend to be.

The main thing that seems to be broken is that commanders route because wimpy summonses got killed or routed : phantasmal warrior, the Moloch's imps, a skeleton, etc.

Boron

August 26th, 2004, 02:02 PM

Kristoffer O said:

if you take with you just a few archers than it is your fault and simply stupid .

It's not stupid unless you know how the system works.

There is nothing such thing as common sense in computer programmed actions, only what devs consider rational solutions and responses to given situations. Responses have to be based on anticipated results and problems as well as simplicity.

The current system does not reflect common sense in every situation. It is a rule that is be based on common sense and general utilability (is this an english word at all?).

If you understand the premises the rule is (hopefully) acceptable.

Adjustments could be done, but it would risk making the system opaque and more unintuitive. The current system gives the player control if s/he is aware of how the rules work.

you misunderstood me completely kristoffer http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

this argument was thought to convince Sly Frog that he just didn't use his scs clever assigning them a few archers and complaining they rout . so i wanted to show him that not the system is to blame but he himself is to blame because he made a "stupid" fault .

[/quote]

the current system is imo really great .
your suggestions would imo be not improvements but worsenings
as it is it is very very balanced .

here e.g. i wrote that i think that the current morale system is really great and can't be improved furthermore http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Arryn

August 26th, 2004, 02:04 PM

Boron said:
what is your impression of starcraft ?
i think it is still the best true RTS game .

i have star wars rebellion myself but with pause like the paradox games it is basically TB .

I had a great deal of fun with Starcraft years ago. And with the expansion pack for it. I've even occasionally reinstalled and played it over the past few years -- when I'm feeling nostalgic and super-bored.

Fans of Kohan would argue with you over which game is "best". And I'm sure that some C&Cer would chime in if their game(s) weren't mentioned (though C&C isn't even in the same league as Starcraft or Kohan).

SW Rebellion isn't "basically TB" using its pause, since you cannot issue orders while paused, unlike with the Paradox games. I no longer will play RT games in which you cannot issue orders while paused. Rebellion wiped out any tolerance I had for that.

The_Tauren13

August 26th, 2004, 02:05 PM

i would like to see you stop a 6 AI rush with 10-20 cannons, boron
not to mention when they rush you cant possible on a non-money map have more than 5 cannons

btw sorry about that OT rant... guess i need an anger management course

Boron

August 26th, 2004, 02:07 PM

The_Tauren13 said:
i would like to see you stop a 6 AI rush with 10-20 cannons, boron
not to mention when they rush you cant possible on a non-money map have more than 5 cannons

btw sorry about that OT rant... guess i need an anger management course

i said with canons + berserkers .

and if all 6 ais attack me my partner tries to help too .

if 3-4 of the ais are protos and run the berserk rush script then you lose maybe but otherwise you always hold with the canons + the berserkers .

Thufir

August 26th, 2004, 02:07 PM

Without getting into great detail I just have to say I love Paradox games (but always wait until patch 3+ http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif ). I also love Dom2, but I think Paradox vs. IW is an apples to oranges comparison, and there's no real way to come up with a "winner".

I tend to think of Paradox games (all that I've played anyhow: HOI, Vicky, EU II) almost more as historical simulations, rather than pure games. When you look at their forums and the arguments held there its astounding how passionate (and knowledgeable!) the participants get into the details of historical considerations of proper design/implementation of the game. I think there are flaws in any Paradox game, but I suspect they often arise from designers (and most of their players) tendency that when faced with those inevitable design tradeoffs that must be faced with any game project, they'll often go for a sense of historical accuracy/realism rather than for gameplay or for balance.

By contrast, Dom2 has the pleasant premise that requires absolutely no interest in historical accuracy! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif Instead, it has at its foundation a profoundly interesting two prongs of development (or better said "orthogonal axes") that constantly force the player to choose between economic/magic development and the spread of their pretender's religious/dominion development. Given how incredibly complex Dom2 is (in terms of number of units, econonomic system, magic and number of spells, choices and configuration of pretenders, etc.), it is astounding how well balanced this game is.

Well, all that said is considerably more detail than I intended, but so it goes http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Anyhow, this Last note on balance should serve as a caution to those that would change the routing rules. Personally, I'm sympathetic, but I think there are balance issues here, and that does make this more tricky than it might seem. I've more to say, but I think I'm going to do that on the Poll: morale and routing (http://www.shrapnelcommunity.com/threads/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=288615&page=0&view=collap sed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1) thread, as that's better suited to specific proposals.

The_Tauren13

August 26th, 2004, 02:13 PM

C&C generals: zero hour is actually quite good, though i didnt much enjoy the earlier ones, not even base generals

kohan also was an excellent game, also, i believe, greatly underrated

Gandalf Parker

August 26th, 2004, 02:23 PM

Thufir said:
I tend to think of Paradox games (all that I've played anyhow: HOI, Vicky, EU II) almost more as historical simulations, rather than pure games.

That was one of the main things I disliked about EU II. It was too historical. It seemed like you could affect things but only within limits which caused the timeline to progress "normally".

If the pagans cant win then I dont want to play. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Boron

August 26th, 2004, 02:26 PM

Arryn said:

Boron said:
what is your impression of starcraft ?
i think it is still the best true RTS game .

i have star wars rebellion myself but with pause like the paradox games it is basically TB .

I had a great deal of fun with Starcraft years ago. And with the expansion pack for it. I've even occasionally reinstalled and played it over the past few years -- when I'm feeling nostalgic and super-bored.

Fans of Kohan would argue with you over which game is "best". And I'm sure that some C&Cer would chime in if their game(s) weren't mentioned (though C&C isn't even in the same league as Starcraft or Kohan).

SW Rebellion isn't "basically TB" using its pause, since you cannot issue orders while paused, unlike with the Paradox games. I no longer will play RT games in which you cannot issue orders while paused. Rebellion wiped out any tolerance I had for that.

oh i have so far only heard of kohan but never played it http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

is it a good mp game too ?
i jugded starcraft mainly on mp .

i think still no rts game with really different races is as balanced as starcraft when played in mp .

age of empires 2 / empire earth were good too but they have the same units for everybody so it is easy to balance .

from the viewpoint of user interface the c&c series is very good . but from the viewpoint of balance .
i haven't played c&c generals but in c&c 3 which i wishfully awaited i was disappointed too .

balance was horrible there :
gdi had the grenadierrush .
later nod had the overpowered artillery .

now a positive list :
my first rts game was dune 2 it was good at its time http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif
c&c 1 and 2 were nice too .
starcraft was almost perfect and occasionally i too play it sometimes even now http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif
in sp i liked lords of the realm 2 quite much though it had serious flaws in ai .
master of orion 2 was really great too but the ai there is extremely bad http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif
heroes of migth and magic 1-3 were really good http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif ,
aow 1+2 too but now with my knowlegde of dominions they are just boring http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

magic the gathering i still play occasionally http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

other strategy games that are good but have severe issues are :

missionforce cyberstorm ( bad ai ) , mech commander 1 ( no saving during missions ) , mech commander 2 ( too easy / short ) , shogun/medieval total war ( too simple / boring ) and the paradox series where i agree with you on bad ai too .

then imperialism 1 ( buggy though + you win to quick with the diplomatic vote http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif )

i ordered myself now civilization 3 for sp but i am not 100% sure if i will like it i liked master of orion 2 + alpha centauri but civilization 1+2 not really /threads/images/Graemlins/ooo.gif

the only other turn based game which i still like extremely and where the knowlegde of dominions didn't influence this in a negative way is still the steel panther series , mainly SP WAW .

but this is a quite different game to dominions though and has only turn based in common http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

looking really forward to :

-total war : rome
-hoi 2
-world in flames

and of course dominions 3 http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Arryn

August 26th, 2004, 02:31 PM

Thufir said:
I tend to think of Paradox games (all that I've played anyhow: HOI, Vicky, EU II) almost more as historical simulations, rather than pure games.

They *are* historical sims, albeit with the ability to create very ahistorical results (including such absurdities as the French conquering the whole world in the 1940s).

Boron

August 26th, 2004, 02:41 PM

Thufir said:
Without getting into great detail I just have to say I love Paradox games (but always wait until patch 3+ http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif ). I also love Dom2, but I think Paradox vs. IW is an apples to oranges comparison, and there's no real way to come up with a "winner".

I tend to think of Paradox games (all that I've played anyhow: HOI, Vicky, EU II) almost more as historical simulations, rather than pure games. When you look at their forums and the arguments held there its astounding how passionate (and knowledgeable!) the participants get into the details of historical considerations of proper design/implementation of the game. I think there are flaws in any Paradox game, but I suspect they often arise from designers (and most of their players) tendency that when faced with those inevitable design tradeoffs that must be faced with any game project, they'll often go for a sense of historical accuracy/realism rather than for gameplay or for balance.

i love the paradox games too and look forward to especially hoi 2 . i own exactly the same like you http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif
i play them occasionally but they are unfortunately too easy / boring when played too long and i think not really adept for mp http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

Gandalf Parker said:

Thufir said:
I tend to think of Paradox games (all that I've played anyhow: HOI, Vicky, EU II) almost more as historical simulations, rather than pure games.

That was one of the main things I disliked about EU II. It was too historical. It seemed like you could affect things but only within limits which caused the timeline to progress "normally".

If the pagans cant win then I dont want to play. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

just look on the AAR board of paradox gandalf http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif
there are reports of ppl who made a wc as maya e.g. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

i could do that on my own too probably but not in the timeline only with about 100-200 additional years with no time limit patch .

in hoi / vicky this is much harder
i guess nobody can win as luxemburg in hoi . http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Sly Frog

August 26th, 2004, 03:01 PM

Boron said:
this argument was thought to convince Sly Frog that he just didn't use his scs clever assigning them a few archers and complaining they rout . so i wanted to show him that not the system is to blame but he himself is to blame because he made a "stupid" fault .

Whether something is stupid or not if you know the game rules is complete aside from my point. The point is that as human beings, we have basic expectations as to how certain things should work. We can learn that these expectations are false under a given ruleset, but it takes effort, and things that are unintuitive without good reason often turn people off to the game.

I think it's a bit specious to argue that anything you do that doesn't work under a non-intuitive rule set is stupid because you should have known not to do it under the ruleset. There is a point at which you do not screw around with "normal" order unless there is a good reason. For example, why don't we call units that have missle weapons heavy infantry? Then, if you misuse heavy infantry in the game (don't use them as archers), you are "stupid" because everyone who has played the game for awhie knows that heavy infantry are actually archers, that heavy cavalry is actually weak against archers in the game, that mages don't cast spells, they fight as heavy infantry, etc.

The point is that there is no reason to set things up that are non-intuitive unless there is a good reason. It just serves as a barrier to entry for new players.

Boron

August 26th, 2004, 03:16 PM

Sly Frog said:

Boron said:
this argument was thought to convince Sly Frog that he just didn't use his scs clever assigning them a few archers and complaining they rout . so i wanted to show him that not the system is to blame but he himself is to blame because he made a "stupid" fault .

Whether something is stupid or not if you know the game rules is complete aside from my point. The point is that as human beings, we have basic expectations as to how certain things should work. We can learn that these expectations are false under a given ruleset, but it takes effort, and things that are unintuitive without good reason often turn people off to the game.

I think it's a bit specious to argue that anything you do that doesn't work under a non-intuitive rule set is stupid because you should have known not to do it under the ruleset. There is a point at which you do not screw around with "normal" order unless there is a good reason. For example, why don't we call units that have missle weapons heavy infantry? Then, if you misuse heavy infantry in the game (don't use them as archers), you are "stupid" because everyone who has played the game for awhie knows that heavy infantry are actually archers, that heavy cavalry is actually weak against archers in the game, that mages don't cast spells, they fight as heavy infantry, etc.

The point is that there is no reason to set things up that are non-intuitive unless there is a good reason. It just serves as a barrier to entry for new players.

good points .

the reason for this is though really good :
BALANCE .
otherwise SCS would be imbalanced probably http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

i myself have dominions now since 3 months and i have to admit that it took me until now to learn some things and i still learn things in dominions http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

in the first month e.g. i had no clue about scs .
and until about 1 week ago i underestimated battlemagic severe too http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif
but i am continually advancing and already quite good now i think http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

my wording was perhaps a bit poor or i misunderstood something so sorry for this

Sly Frog

August 26th, 2004, 03:31 PM

Boron said:

good points .

the reason for this is though really good :
BALANCE .
otherwise SCS would be imbalanced probably http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

i myself have dominions now since 3 months and i have to admit that it took me until now to learn some things and i still learn things in dominions http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

in the first month e.g. i had no clue about scs .
and until about 1 week ago i underestimated battlemagic severe too http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif
but i am continually advancing and already quite good now i think http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

my wording was perhaps a bit poor or i misunderstood something so sorry for this

Your wording is fine, and I understand your reasoning. You've basically said that there is a compelling reason for the system to be a bit unintuitive and goofy, which I can generally accept, so long as the reason outweighs the deviation from normal expectations. If there is no good way to balance the game without using the current morale and routing system, then it is a necessary evil.

atul

August 26th, 2004, 04:35 PM

Sly Frog said:
Whether something is stupid or not if you know the game rules is complete aside from my point. The point is that as human beings, we have basic expectations as to how certain things should work.

I'm not sure how small minority I represent. I happen to read the manual before getting into game too deeply. And I expect that the most important things I have to consider can be found from the manual.

The big deal with current routing system is that they are completely told in four sentences, the fourth being reserved for the special case of immortals. And they're simple if -> then rules, easy to remember and see in action.

With the proposed alternatives the battle becomes a chaos, at least to a newbie. "Why did five of my ten commanders just rout in the middle of the fight?" "WTF, my mages just decided to stay there to be slaughtered?" etc, all explainable by rules and (invisible to player) die rolls. While they might be reasonable in a miniature game where you have to make the rolls and so on, in a game they'd make things just a lot less smooth.

Of course, there are things that might be done differently (the commander-only army rout for one), but I'd think that the intuitivity wouldn't be served well with a change to more complicated.

I think that my point boils down to one question: when playing a turn based strategy game, should one be expected to read the manual?

Evil Dave

August 27th, 2004, 12:40 AM

Arryn said:

They also desperately need someone with experience in AI (preferably neural-net AI). Of course, people with experience in AI are in severely short supply in the entire gaming industry. It's just that the games that most need good AI (ie: strategy games) are often the ones with the worst AIs. Probably has something to do with the genre's popularity and typical budgets.

When I'm not playing Dom2, http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif I spend my time thinking about data mining and machine learning. (Yeah, it's my job.) So, I'm curious what you mean.

When you say "AI", you do mean "machine learning systems" or "decent software to play games"?

Why do you think neural nets would play Dom2 well? I work with a neural net guru, and the problems he takes on are far simpler than playing Dom2.

I agree folks who write games don't know a lot about how to get software to play them, but I'm not sure the problem is just lack of money. The problem is hard. Or at least, I think the company I work for would pay could good money for any software that could play Dom2 well, cause it could do lots of other hard things well, too.

magnate

August 27th, 2004, 06:24 AM

Cainehill said:
You didn't use a smiley. And you're bloody stupid if you think or expect that people can tell when you're trying to be jocular in a pure text medium when you _don't_ use emoticons or some other means to display the mood in which something was written.

This is a longtime problem with the internet and text mediums. Intelligent people, and even rutabagas if they're been on the net long enough, figured this out and use things like " http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif " or " <sarcasm> ... </sarcasm> " or whatnot.

You don't have the clues of tone of voice, of body language, and usually not even the benefit of some knowledge of the other person.

And you posted a one liner that was at least as easily interpretted as sarcasm or bitterness than good natured humor / joking.

That's ... not particularly bright. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif And even worse is your response of indignity because someone didn't have the telepathy to know how you meant it!

Oh - that'll be five pounds for the tutoring in basic communications theory 101. <img src="http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif" alt="" />

Hello Cainehill - nice essay. I think you undervalue the power of language though. I don't think my one-line post was easily interpreted "as sarcasm or bitterness", unless I seriously overestimated my audience. So far you and Arryn seem to be the only people who misinterpreted it. I'm not saying emoticons aren't useful - they are indeed, and they can be fun - but they're not mandatory, except for the linguistically challenged. As you probably know, a large proportion of humour arises from ambiguity, and that's lost if you use a smiley.

Besides, my indignity was not actually at Arryn's misinterpretation, but at the nasty and supercilious tone of her reply. Even if I had meant it seriously (which would have been a little sad), it would not have warranted such an unpleasant response.

Cainehill said:

You also try to make people feel small by quoting their own text back at them, usually out of context. I can really see why some people dislike you. You give female gamers a very bad name.

Oh, Goddess forbid that anyone use what someone wrote against them! Maybe you'd prefer that they editting your words, misattributed who said what, and used subtle innuendo in conjunction with the words that you didn't exactly say? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

I'm also curious how Arryn used what you wrote out of context. After all - it _was_ just a one line sentence of a post. <img src="http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif" alt="" /> Hard to use that out of context.

No of course it's better to quote people than to edit or misattribute - but if you deliberately change the context, that's still as bad even if you quote verbatim. I wasn't referring to Arryn's quoting of me in that particular instance, it was a more general observation after reading her Posts for several months, and a specific reference to her recent dispute with Pickles in another thread. But since I didn't bother to spell that out, I wasn't expecting anyone to know that telepathically ....

CC

magnate

August 27th, 2004, 06:47 AM

Kristoffer O said:

Thanks for bring that back to the foreground. I played my first few games with standard troops and only really got into SCs thanks to Boron suggesting I check out ice devils. Only now do I see how odd it is that they flee when the chaff is killed even if they themselves are untouched. I'd really like a word from the devs on this. Maybe there's a reason why it wouldn't work. In the poll thread Boron said it would make battlemages too powerful, but I don't understand that. They don't usually have very high morale - and even if they did stay on the battlefield, they might well die once all the cannon fodder is gone.

CC

There is nothing that distinguishes a SC from any other commander. Commanders rout when their armies rout. Mages and commanders rarely can stand up to an army by themselves. Therefore commanders follow their routing armies.

SC's are exceptions in that you want them to fight on. The categorization of a SC is highly subjective. Is a Banelord an SC? Is a Banelord with a wraith sword an SC? Is your Wight mage with a wraith sword an SC? The Lamia queen with a wraith sword and an active astral shield might well work as a SC, but you would never want your pretender arch mage with the same equipment to fight on when the enemy army has beaten your troops.

The rout rules allows an exeption to lone commanders. Therefore SC's and pretender monsters can conquer provinces by themselves, but if they follow and lead armies they are subject to the normal routing rules.

There are other reasons as well. Do you want me to elaborate or is this OK for now? (I almost fell in the teacher trap and asked you to come up with two other reasons the rout works as it does <img src="http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif" alt="" /> )

Thanks v much for the response - I'm clear on the current design. First of all, I was never recommending that any special or different rules be applied to SCs, for the very reason that you give - it's impossible to define what's an SC and what isn't.

If I've understood correctly, the main reason for commanders routing when armies rout is that in most cases they'd get slaughtered if they hung around. That's perfectly logical in a normal wargame. But as someone said in another thread (it may even have been Norfleet), this game is about big badass monsters - there's a whole game mechanic (the HoF) dedicated to encouraging their use.

So, if in a decent proportion of cases there is at least one commander who wouldn't get slaughtered just because the troops have routed, and may well go on to win the battle by himself or with mage support, I think it's fair to ask whether the current system is doing what you want for the game? As someone else has said (Sly Frog I think), this mechanic causes players to learn non-obvious tactics to work around it.

What this interesting but very varied discussion is revealing (in between people posting about their favorite games), is that there would be consequences to changing the auto-rout to a morale check. Someone said it would make SCs more powerful by allowing them to take chaff along - well yes I guess so, but that's both intuitive and realistic in a RP sense. Boron said it would make mages more powerful, which I still don't understand. Someone else said it would endanger low-hp pretenders and prophets because they have 30 morale, which I confess I hadn't considered ... but surely the sheer number of hps you have remaining could be factored into morale checks, as well as % lost.

Anyway, thanks again for chipping in - I appreciate that thought was put in to the current system (not for a moment did I think otherwise!), but I'm still not quite convinced that it wouldn't be better (as well as more intuitive) to change it to a morale check. Yes, people would occasionally see their foolhardy low-hp commanders killed by hanging around, but I think if the morale check mechanism is sensitive enough, the difference between 10 and 30 will eliminate most of those cases. Yes, you'd have to be very careful with pretenders and prophets!

I ought to thank you for writing what may well be my favourite game ever, but since I managed to install it at work my life has gone downhill in a big way. I never have time to get anything done any more!

CC

Arryn

August 27th, 2004, 07:09 AM

magnate said:
I don't think my one-line post was easily interpreted "as sarcasm or bitterness"

Actually, that's precisely the impression I got from it. Cainehill has pretty much said everything else I could say about it, so I'll leave it at that.

magnate said:
I'm not saying emoticons aren't useful - they are indeed, and they can be fun - but they're not mandatory, except for the linguistically challenged.

You must not do very much reading of novels in real life, because if you did, you'd understand Cainehill's point about your having omitted any clues as to tone, et cetera. Writers of novels are much more descriptive so that the "body language" which you left out is presented to readers so that they can get a proper rendering of the situation as the author intended for it to be. Leaving out such clues has nothing to do with whether the reader is "linguistically challenged", and has everything to do with whether you have an understanding of the communications medium, its limitations, and if you really care about how your message is received. A skilled writer takes responsibility for making sure that the reader does not need to be psychic in order to correctly interpret a message. Alas, far too many people nowadays fail to understand the concept of taking responsibility for their own actions (or lack of action).

So, if you write a post that could be (mis)interpreted as flamebait, you should not be surprised or indignant if the response you get is ... a flame. Remember the old (and tired) adage about sowing and reaping, and the other one about casting of stones.

magnate

August 27th, 2004, 08:14 AM

Arryn said:
So, if you write a post that could be (mis)interpreted as flamebait, you should not be surprised or indignant if the response you get is ... a flame. Remember the old (and tired) adage about sowing and reaping, and the other one about casting of stones.

I do read a lot of novels in real life and am well aware of the advantages of descriptive prose. We'll have to agree to disagree about the linguistics - I don't believe that my post was in any way complicated or nuanced (and therefore in need of clarification), it was simply and deliberately ambiguous, because I thought that would make it funnier.

Interestingly you have neglected to comment on my most significant point, which is that even if you had correctly interpreted my post as serious, your response was unnecessarily unpleasant. A simple statement of your differing viewpoint, that you didn't think it was actually at all important, would have sufficed without opening hostilities.

CC

Arryn

August 27th, 2004, 09:01 AM

magnate said:
I don't believe that my post was in any way complicated or nuanced (and therefore in need of clarification), it was simply and deliberately ambiguous, because I thought that would make it funnier.

There can be a great deal of "nuance" in ambiguity. You cannot argue that you were being vague in order to promote inference (and multiple possible interpretations) and then protest innocence of intent of nuance. You cannot have it both ways.

By way of an analogy to your actions, why don't you try your technique of deliberate ambiguity in a pub sometime, and see how "funny" it might be? Walk over to a stranger (preferably an inebriated and muscular dock worker), spit on the floor vaguely (ambiguously) near to them, and then observe whether their reaction to you is positive (or, most likely, not). Perhaps your idea of humor is getting punched in the face and sent to the nearest hospital. Some people have an odd sense of humor.

magnate said:
Interestingly you have neglected to comment on my most significant point, which is that even if you had correctly interpreted my post as serious, your response was unnecessarily unpleasant. A simple statement of your differing viewpoint, that you didn't think it was actually at all important, would have sufficed without opening hostilities.

What you find "significant" may not be what others do.

It *was* a "simple statement of a differing viewpoint". I said the discussion of the topic was a waste of time (and I even explained why, just so you needn't be psychic), and I contradicted your allegedly humorous one-liner regarding your feeling that the thread's topic was "important". That apparently offended your tender sensibilities (was "unnecessarily unpleasant" as you put it). It was you who chose to "open hostilities", and to twist *my* words. You chose to put words into my mouth I did not say, and to misconstrue what I did say. Shall I quote the text of your various personal attacks? Or will you choose to berate me (again) for quoting your own words, which you find inconvenient to have pointed out to you? If you don't like someone quoting your words back to you, you should be more careful of what you say.

magnate

August 27th, 2004, 10:03 AM

Arryn said:

magnate said:
I don't believe that my post was in any way complicated or nuanced (and therefore in need of clarification), it was simply and deliberately ambiguous, because I thought that would make it funnier.

There can be a great deal of "nuance" in ambiguity. You cannot argue that you were being vague in order to promote inference (and multiple possible interpretations) and then protest innocence of intent of nuance. You cannot have it both ways.

We're talking about very minor changes (or not) to a superb and complex piece of software, which is a hobby we all pursue in our spare time. It genuinely did not occur to me that anybody would think that the word "important" could seriously be used to describe anything in this thread, which is what I meant by lack of nuance. In that sense it was obvious. The ambiguity was simply the absence of a smiley. I don't think I am trying to have it both ways, though your argument is phrased well.

[snips painfully stereotypical and thoroughly un-illuminating analogy about dockers]

Arryn said:
What you find "significant" may not be what others do.

It *was* a "simple statement of a differing viewpoint". I said the discussion of the topic was a waste of time (and I even explained why, just so you needn't be psychic), and I contradicted your allegedly humorous one-liner regarding your feeling that the thread's topic was "important". That apparently offended your tender sensibilities (was "unnecessarily unpleasant" as you put it). It was you who chose to "open hostilities", and to twist *my* words. You chose to put words into my mouth I did not say, and to misconstrue what I did say. Shall I quote the text of your various personal attacks? Or will you choose to berate me (again) for quoting your own words, which you find inconvenient to have pointed out to you? If you don't like someone quoting your words back to you, you should be more careful of what you say.

Here we have a simple difference of opinion. You believe that your response to my one-liner was completely inoffensive, and that I took offence completely erroneously and chose to open hostilities. My view is that your response was unpleasant and hostile, and that I merely responded in kind. For the benefit of other people's bandwidth, we should perhaps leave it there.

CC

Arryn

August 27th, 2004, 11:16 AM

magnate said:
We're talking about very minor changes (or not) to a superb and complex piece of software, which is a hobby we all pursue in our spare time.

Well said, especially the praise, but I disagree with your belief that the changes might be minor. And I especially disagree that even if they were, the devs should (much less would) do anything about it. But that gets into rehashing what's already been said (and said again, and again, and again). http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

magnate said:
It genuinely did not occur to me that anybody would think that the word "important" could seriously be used to describe anything in this thread, which is what I meant by lack of nuance. In that sense it was obvious. The ambiguity was simply the absence of a smiley. I don't think I am trying to have it both ways, though your argument is phrased well.

Thank you. And I'll accept what you say regarding the (mis)interpretation of your use of "important". Which goes back to mine (and Cainehill's) point regarding how one's intentions can be easily misconstrued if one isn't very careful with how one goes about communicating one's thoughts. But we've beaten this horse bloody and I think we are in some reasonable approximation of agreement that there's been plenty of error and blame on both of our parts that we can call it even and let it go.

magnate said:
[snips painfully stereotypical and thoroughly un-illuminating analogy about dockers]

Hey! Where's *your* sense of humor?

magnate said:
For the benefit of other people's bandwidth, we should perhaps leave it there.

Agreed.

Cainehill

August 27th, 2004, 12:20 PM

I notice that for all the talk of salient points being ignored, none of the proponents of Panther's "new and improved" morale system (where commanders simply make a morale check when a troop of soldiers routs) has responded to my pointing out that this would be totally broken, because _all_ pretenders and prophets (morale 30) would stay and be slaughtered, even with a mere 10 or less base hit points.

Arryn

August 27th, 2004, 12:27 PM

Cainehill said:
none of the proponents of Panther's "new and improved" morale system (where commanders simply make a morale check when a troop of soldiers routs) has responded to my pointing out that this would be totally broken, because _all_ pretenders and prophets (morale 30) would stay and be slaughtered, even with a mere 10 or less base hit points.

In order for such a system to work, the devs would also have to implement the capability for additional orders, such as "retreat if no troops remain under my command", or "retreat if no friendly troops remain on the battlefield", etc. In short, the changes need to be much more involved than the simplistic ideas that have been proposed thus far. IMO.

A partial "fix" is much worse than leaving things well enough alone. Let's not go and break one thing trying to fix another.